Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/3985/1/V52N06_339.pdf

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,12:25

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 10 2007,11:42)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 01 2007,19:54)

Vicky

It was Haldane. You know even less than you think.

Haldane was as perplexed by the concept of "Natural selection" as you are now.

Haldane:

Quote

"Now this process of 'racial senescence' was not peculiar to the Ammonites . . . It seems to have occurred also in the Graptolites, Foraminifera, and other groups . . . It is not very easy to reconcile with evolution by natural selection."

and

Quote

"fallacy that natural selection will always make an organism fitter in its struggle with the environment"
(p. 119) and that variations "which possess survival value for the individual may lead to degeneration and extinction of the species"

But obviouisly the species can be eliminated only if all their individuals are eliminated. But those are not eliminated because they posses "survival value".

Btw McAtee who pointed out (and obviously ridiculed) conception of Natural selection in darwinian heads also addressed the problem of evolution of horses from his point of view:

Quote

Horses, reintroduced, thrive in the wild in both North and South America on ranges where their fossil analogues
abounded. Such cases convincingly indicate that the causes of extinction were internal to the organisms concerned and not external or selective.

Hey Marty, what's YOUR explanation on the development of the horse? Were all the different varieties on Noah's Ark?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,12:30

Quote (JAM @ Nov. 05 2007,00:37)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 04 2007,13:05)

Let me also add; these scientists have theories that have never been falsified.

Let me add that whether they've been falsified is irrelevant, when they have never been TESTED.

Schindewolf based his theory on the observed fossil record as well as observed biological evidence. His theory was an attempt to explain all the evidence.

Berg based his theory on years and years of his own observations in the field, as well as the documented observations of countless others.

Both of these men were scientists of the highest regard in their respective fields who based their theories on observed, documented phenomena.

Davison took their work and expanded upon it - suggesting a workable mechanism. This mechanism (semi-meiotic reproduction) has been experimentally verified possible here,
here,
and here.

Quote

Gynogenetic reproduction, employing the inhibtion of meiosis I1 and yielding diploid rather than triploid progeny, can be used to map G-K distances as well as
to develop “inbred” strains*. This mode of reproduction is known in several natural populations of invertebrates and vertebrates (SUOMALAINEN 1950; WHITE 1948, 1970; OLSEN 1962; CARSON 1967) and has been produced experimentally in vertebrates when the appropriate meiotic events are altered (TYLER 1955; BEATTY 1967; GRAHAM 1970; TARKOWSKI, WITKOWSKA, and NOWICKA 1970).
(Emphasis mine)

A search for the terms parthenogenesis, gynogenesis, and hybridogenesis reveals more data in this area.

I have no idea why these scientists are ignored, but my guess is that their views don't fit the paradigm, and - based on my own observations - scientists whose ideas don't fit are generally ostracized, lose funding, and eventually relegated to the sidelines.

No one wants to lose their position over such things, so they stick to the paradigm.

That's my guess.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,12:50

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,11:05)

My expectation then is that the provisional definition of "junk DNA" will continually evolve until it no longer includes any portion of the genome.

So natural selection (new data) will elicit mutations (deletions) in the definition of "junk DNA."

Another nail in the coffin of Darwinism.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,13:06

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,12:30)

Davison took their work and expanded upon it - suggesting a workable mechanism. This mechanism (semi-meiotic reproduction) has been experimentally verified possible here,
here,
and here.

Quote

Gynogenetic reproduction, employing the inhibtion of meiosis I1 and yielding diploid rather than triploid progeny, can be used to map G-K distances as well as
to develop “inbred” strains*. This mode of reproduction is known in several natural populations of invertebrates and vertebrates (SUOMALAINEN 1950; WHITE 1948, 1970; OLSEN 1962; CARSON 1967) and has been produced experimentally in vertebrates when the appropriate meiotic events are altered (TYLER 1955; BEATTY 1967; GRAHAM 1970; TARKOWSKI, WITKOWSKA, and NOWICKA 1970).
(Emphasis mine)

A search for the terms parthenogenesis, gynogenesis, and hybridogenesis reveals more data in this area.

That's not the issue. The issue is not whether semi-meiotic reproduction can occur. The issue is whether that is the driving mechanism of evolution, as Davison claims.

Furthermore, let's assume that Davison is correct in that claim. How would that logically entail "front-loading"?

Quote

I have no idea why these scientists are ignored, but my guess is that their views don't fit the paradigm, and - based on my own observations - scientists whose ideas don't fit are generally ostracized, lose funding, and eventually relegated to the sidelines.

No one wants to lose their position over such things, so they stick to the paradigm.

That's my guess.

My guess is that their findings (not their "views," whatever they may be, not having been expressed in the papers you cited), are not RELEVANT to the paradigm. It's survival of the fittest out there. (Your case is not strengthened by such gratuitous ad hominems.)

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,15:51

Quote (mitschlag @ Nov. 10 2007,13:06)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,12:30)

Davison took their work and expanded upon it - suggesting a workable mechanism. This mechanism (semi-meiotic reproduction) has been experimentally verified possible here,
here,
and here.

Quote

Gynogenetic reproduction, employing the inhibtion of meiosis I1 and yielding diploid rather than triploid progeny, can be used to map G-K distances as well as
to develop “inbred” strains*. This mode of reproduction is known in several natural populations of invertebrates and vertebrates (SUOMALAINEN 1950; WHITE 1948, 1970; OLSEN 1962; CARSON 1967) and has been produced experimentally in vertebrates when the appropriate meiotic events are altered (TYLER 1955; BEATTY 1967; GRAHAM 1970; TARKOWSKI, WITKOWSKA, and NOWICKA 1970).
(Emphasis mine)

A search for the terms parthenogenesis, gynogenesis, and hybridogenesis reveals more data in this area.

That's not the issue. The issue is not whether semi-meiotic reproduction can occur. The issue is whether that is the driving mechanism of evolution, as Davison claims.

Furthermore, let's assume that Davison is correct in that claim. How would that logically entail "front-loading"?

These saltational events are too extensive to be random. This is what implies front-loading.

Quote

I have no idea why these scientists are ignored, but my guess is that their views don't fit the paradigm, and - based on my own observations - scientists whose ideas don't fit are generally ostracized, lose funding, and eventually relegated to the sidelines.

No one wants to lose their position over such things, so they stick to the paradigm.

That's my guess.

My guess is that their findings (not their "views," whatever they may be, not having been expressed in the papers you cited), are not RELEVANT to the paradigm. It's survival of the fittest out there. (Your case is not strengthened by such gratuitous ad hominems.)

I wasn't aware that I was using "gratuitous ad hominems". I based my statements on observed incidents such as this one; where a proponent of ID decides to sever his ties (at least publicly) to the movement because he was accepted into a graduate program at Johns Hopkins University. This after being advised that he "may expect possible complications" for his public involvement with ID.

Dr. Davison suffered extensive repurcusions at the University of Vermont.

What I'm describing here is not imaginary, but a real palpable fear of losing that for which you've worked all your life if you don't embrace the currently held theory.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,16:15

Daniel, is Sal Cordova an ID'er or a Young Earth Creationist?

Are the two the same?

toodles, sweetums....

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Assassinator

Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,16:39

Quote

These saltational events are too extensive to be random.

Wich "saltational" events? You mean like the Cambrian Explosion? That still took several millions of years, and that's one HELL of a long time.

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,17:08

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,15:51)

These saltational events are too extensive to be random. This is what implies front-loading.

I've read Davison's Evolutionary Manifesto

Please quote where in that document he makes that point.

And please state the criteria that would distinguish "too extensive" from "random," citing data upon which you base your claim.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,17:12

Quote

What I'm describing here is not imaginary, but a real palpable fear of losing that for which you've worked all your life if you don't embrace the currently held theory.

Scientific advancement is, broadly speaking, based on merit.

How does one distinguish between simple incompetence that is fully deserving of worsening one's standing in science, and exploration of alternative theories in a competent fashion, which should not be penalized?

Bear in mind that we have plenty of examples of both sorts that we can check your answer against.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,17:14

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,15:51)

I wasn't aware that I was using "gratuitous ad hominems". I based my statements on observed incidents such as this one; where a proponent of ID decides to sever his ties (at least publicly) to the movement because he was accepted into a graduate program at Johns Hopkins University. This after being advised that he "may expect possible complications" for his public involvement with ID.

The persecution complexes of evolution deniers are legion, on this thread and throughout the blogosphere.

Can you tell the difference between anecdote and reality?

The more you pile on crap like this, the more you undermine your credibility.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Jim_Wynne

Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,17:39

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,11:40)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 10 2007,10:04)

Unless you're willing to define your terms in your own words, we have no way of knowing what you're talking about, and you are free to move the goalposts at will. So I'll ask again:
1) What do you mean by "complex," how do you identify it, and what are the empirical delimiters between "complex" and not-complex?
2) How do you define "functional system"?

Fair enough.

"Complex" means "composed of many interconnected parts".
As a general rule: more parts = more complex.

"Functional system" means "an assemblage of parts which work together towards the same purpose or function"

Please reread the first question, and try again. What about boundaries? You need to be able to describe (with more rigor than "I know it when I see it") the difference between complex and not-complex.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Nov. 10 2007,18:47

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,15:51)

Dr. Davison suffered extensive repurcusions at the University of Vermont.

Try to put yourself in the position of authority. You have a tenured faculty member who has become scientifically unproductive (check publications and grants lists) and is making a public spectacle of himself.

You can't fire him. What do you do? (Cue Lehigh and Behe.)

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,03:15

Quote (mitschlag @ Nov. 10 2007,18:47)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,15:51)

Dr. Davison suffered extensive repurcusions at the University of Vermont.

Try to put yourself in the position of authority. You have a tenured faculty member who has become scientifically unproductive (check publications and grants lists) and is making a public spectacle of himself.

You can't fire him. What do you do? (Cue Lehigh and Behe.)

Interesting link.

Quote

It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

I think you would agree 500 years ago also with:

Quote

It is our collective position that hermetism has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Surely true and yet it was the faked work of Hermes Trismegistus and his worshipping of the Sun, that led Giordano Bruno to support solar system of Copernikus (who in his drawing of new Solar system used Hermes Trismegistus name as well). From bad pressupositions good results.

And it is utterly weird to use your "letter" against anti-darwinist Pierre Grasse mentioned in John Davison's Manifesto. Grasse was president of French academy of science, you know.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,06:29

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 11 2007,03:15)

Quote

It is our collective position that hermetism has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Surely true and yet it was the faked work of Hermes Trismegistus and his worshipping of the Sun, that led Giordano Bruno to support solar system of Copernikus (who in his drawing of new Solar system used Hermes Trismegistus name as well). From bad pressupositions good results.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, VMartin.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,07:49

Quote (mitschlag @ Nov. 11 2007,06:29)

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 11 2007,03:15)

Quote

It is our collective position that hermetism has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

Surely true and yet it was the faked work of Hermes Trismegistus and his worshipping of the Sun, that led Giordano Bruno to support solar system of Copernikus (who in his drawing of new Solar system used Hermes Trismegistus name as well). From bad pressupositions good results.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, VMartin.

My point was that at the root of the modern science stood men of Rennaisance who had a much more complex view of the reality than reductionism so common today. Nowadays it is biologist professor Zdenek Neubauer in Czech republic, an extraordinary educated scholar and philosopher with such a stance. He dismissed in his latest books neodarwinism using harsh words. Of course reductionists flocked together in their atheistic Czech circle for science "Sisyphos" became angry. But no one of them has so strong reputation and background in Czech republic and on the radio discussions with him they sounds very naive and plain. So there was no tendency to create any letter of dissociation at the department of Charles University Prague which he headed some times ago.

No one of his most interesting books have been translated into English yet (maybe he disagree, I don't know. He doesn't publish in English anymore. He writes now only in Czech and Italian, even though he is fluent in German, Latin and English and helped translate some neo-platonic works from Greek). But his friend and colleague Komarek wrote a book on history of mimicry which has been translated and is available in English. Komarek no way take seriously neodarwinian explanation of many cases of so-called mimicry. But it is no reason for his colleagues at Uni Prague to flock together and scribble a letter of dissociation.

You know these letter of dissociation are very funny in the area of Central Europe. Such letters make often only more sympathy for your stance.

Of course I am very well aware of the fact that influnce of Behe is differenet than those scientists I mentioned above. Anyway Davison's work in my opinion goes more deeply into secrets of evolution than the work of Behe.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,08:28

Publishing in the Rivista journal doesn't help. I hear that it comes in a brown paper bag.

martin your ideas about what makes ideas valid and what constitutes a proper defense from criticism sure are interesting.

much in the same way that i dig through bear shit to see what he has been eating. and also flipping over dead possums and looking for Nicrophorus. you are a curiosity much like bloody stool. now please tell us what you intend to replace-a da darwismus with, since you have been unable to demonstrate that it is wrong beyond handwaving and quotemining.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,08:46

Quote (VMartin @ Nov. 11 2007,07:49)

My point was that at the root of the modern science stood men of Rennaisance who had a much more complex view of the reality than reductionism so common today.

Maybe they were just confused.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,11:38

I don't have time to google for mitschlag and Erasmus all scientific articles regarding microbiology by professor Zden?k Neubauer. Here is the abstract of his article he published as a 24 year old microbiologist in the Nature 1967.

Nature 1967: Brief consideration of the Meaning of the Lysogenic Conversion in Salmonella anatum Phage System

and then as a co-author working at the International Laboratory of Genetics and Biophysics, Naples

Nature 1970: The Antirepressor: a New Element in the Regulation of Protein Synthesis

Did anyone of you published so young in the Nature (if you have ever published there something) that entitles you to dismiss your antidarwinian adersaries who published there as "confused"?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,12:16

indeed if we look at the progression of any body of theory at the basal branches you will find a plurality of alternative theories (see S Naeem Ecology 2006 or 2007 paper for a discussion of this dialectical progression in ecology). the reasons for the trimming of the branches are varied, but ultimately empirical support is the criterion.

and there is no theoretical nor empirical support for your ideas Martin, and this is the same as for Daniel. saltational orthogenetical views must deny heredity. if you believe that speciation is independent of phylogenesis or the arisal of new forms, you must have another mechanism. i've not read all of davison's manifesto yet so i'll withhold judgment about his proposed mechanisms, but it suffices to say that the discovery and advent of DNA based phylogenetics destroyed any possibility that schindewolf et al could be right because it showed the mechanism for divergence between populations and a workable theoretical framework for constructing hypotheses about nested hierarchies.

schindewolf was right about some things, namely the effects of canalization as a constraint. but there is no support for the idea of reservoirs of variation, unless you are going to follow daniels lead and claim that this is what non-coding DNA is. JAM is doing a much better job than I could with refuting that view, so I will simply ask: do you have a new mechanism? do you have a testable theory?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,12:36

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 10 2007,17:39)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,11:40)

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 10 2007,10:04)

Unless you're willing to define your terms in your own words, we have no way of knowing what you're talking about, and you are free to move the goalposts at will. So I'll ask again:
1) What do you mean by "complex," how do you identify it, and what are the empirical delimiters between "complex" and not-complex?
2) How do you define "functional system"?

Fair enough.

"Complex" means "composed of many interconnected parts".
As a general rule: more parts = more complex.

"Functional system" means "an assemblage of parts which work together towards the same purpose or function"

Please reread the first question, and try again. What about boundaries? You need to be able to describe (with more rigor than "I know it when I see it") the difference between complex and not-complex.

You can count can't you?

What part of "more parts = more complex" doesn't make sense?

Complexity is a matter of degree - the only boundary is that it requires more than 1 part.

After that it's not, "this is complex and that isn't"; it's, "this is more complex than that".

Remember we're talking about biological systems here. If you can point to one that you'd say is not a "complex functional system", go ahead and eliminate that one from the discussion.

I'd like to see some experimental evidence that any one of the myriads of suggested mechanisms for evolution can produce systems that are at least as complex and functional as known biological systems.

Here, I'll make it easy for you: I'll give you on of the most basic biological system in life; one on which all life depends: Protein Synthesis.

Now, take any of the mechanisms you like (or any combination of them) and show me experimental evidence that a product very much like protein synthesis can be constructed utilizing those mechanisms.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,12:52

Quote (mitschlag @ Nov. 10 2007,17:08)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,15:51)

These saltational events are too extensive to be random. This is what implies front-loading.

I've read Davison's Evolutionary Manifesto

Please quote where in that document he makes that point.

And please state the criteria that would distinguish "too extensive" from "random," citing data upon which you base your claim.

He doesn't make that point in the Manifesto. He does make it in his many postings on the web since that time. The only place in his manifesto where he hints at it is here:

Quote

While it is true that the existence of a Creator, while a logical necessity, has never been rigorously proved and perhaps never can be, it is also true that neither has been the spontaneous generation of life. (emphasis mine)

If one reads the various works on which he builds his hypothesis: the writings of William Bateson, Leo S. Berg, Robert Broom, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grassé, and Otto Schindewolf, (of which I've only read one work apiece for Berg and Schindewolf, and just started one from Bateson), you find that this need for front-loading (or some type of divine guidance) is necessary (or at least implied) for evolution of the saltational type they espouse to happen.

So, as to the data on which I base my claim, I'll just point you to the Vista Genome Browser, where you can compare the genomes of like organisms and see the multitude of differences for yourself. If these differences are the result of a small number of saltational events, they could not be random and still produce working, living organisms.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,12:55

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2007,17:12)

Quote

What I'm describing here is not imaginary, but a real palpable fear of losing that for which you've worked all your life if you don't embrace the currently held theory.

Scientific advancement is, broadly speaking, based on merit.

How does one distinguish between simple incompetence that is fully deserving of worsening one's standing in science, and exploration of alternative theories in a competent fashion, which should not be penalized?

Bear in mind that we have plenty of examples of both sorts that we can check your answer against.

I would say one would distinguish between these two types of individuals by careful analysis of their claims via the scientific method.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,13:05

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,10:45)

This is an interesting experiment. I have a couple questions:
1. Why did they use artificial selection as opposed to natural selection?

So that they could analyze the phage after each generation. You're desperately looking for a reason to discount this; how predictable.

Quote

2. My math isn't the greatest so when they say that the replacement phage had "six-order magnitude lower infectivity" than the original phage, and the newly evolved phage "showed a 240-fold increase in infectivity as compared to its origin, fd-RP", they're talking about 0.00024 less infectivity than the original wild phage - correct?

But that increase was obtained in just seven generations, so that doesn't work as a justification for discounting the data.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,13:07

Daniel may I recommend a book to you? it's short.

book

you might get a broader perspective of galton bateson and devries and why their ideas were wrong. it has something to do with mendel.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,13:25

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,11:05)

Quote (JAM @ Nov. 10 2007,01:07)

Quote

Here's another question: how long does it take to evolve multiple, different, incredibly specific, functional, new protein-protein binding sites, using nothing but genetic variation and selection?

I don't know.

Two weeks.

Is this information in the paper you linked to?

No. It's a completely different case.

Quote

My expectation then is that the provisional definition of "junk DNA" will continually evolve until it no longer includes any portion of the genome.

Junk isn't a provisional DEFINITION, it is a provisional CLASSIFICATION. Let's take one of the most prevalent types of junk in our genomes: LINE repeats. Just to be clear, you're claiming that if you have 9 LINE repeats and I have 10 at a particular genomic position, you are predicting that the difference will have functional relevance, correct?

Quote

Are you saying that 90-95% of the human genome is repeats?

Don't ask me, look at VISTA. That multicolored line shows the major (not all) families of repeats. See the legend at lower left.

Quote

I don't know why most designers do what they do - that is not an argument against design.

Baloney. It demolishes any human's claim that life LOOKS designed, exposing it as dishonest cherry-picking.

Quote

It might be an effective argument against the competency of the designer, provided you can come up with a better workable system.

It's the same designer that understands the value of plumbing. The point is that you can't recognize design in the cell's "plumbing" at all.

Quote

According to your hypothesis, how many human genes won't have a mouse ortholog and vice versa?

...I have no idea. My hypothesis doesn't really work that way. What I mean is; since I view each of the multitude of evolutionary events between mouse and man as saltational, there's no way to predict the number of orthologs.

So, in your hypothesis, saltational events have nothing whatsoever to do with new genes and proteins? WTF do these saltational events involve, then?

Quote

My main contention is that the genomic sequences of organisms will be found to be fully functional and evolutionarily constrained within species - leaving the only possible mechanisms for the true evolution of new species saltational ones.

So why wouldn't such mechanisms involve new proteins and genes encoding them? I'm not following your exclusion of the fundamental nuts & bolts of biology.

Quote

So a wrong prediction is not "lying" then I take it? ;)

Not as long as one admits it. Responding to a question about testing a hypothesis with a long list of things that don't constitute testing is, IMO. ;-)

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,13:38

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 11 2007,12:16)

indeed if we look at the progression of any body of theory at the basal branches you will find a plurality of alternative theories (see S Naeem Ecology 2006 or 2007 paper for a discussion of this dialectical progression in ecology). the reasons for the trimming of the branches are varied, but ultimately empirical support is the criterion.

and there is no theoretical nor empirical support for your ideas Martin, and this is the same as for Daniel. saltational orthogenetical views must deny heredity. if you believe that speciation is independent of phylogenesis or the arisal of new forms, you must have another mechanism. i've not read all of davison's manifesto yet so i'll withhold judgment about his proposed mechanisms, but it suffices to say that the discovery and advent of DNA based phylogenetics destroyed any possibility that schindewolf et al could be right because it showed the mechanism for divergence between populations and a workable theoretical framework for constructing hypotheses about nested hierarchies.

schindewolf was right about some things, namely the effects of canalization as a constraint. but there is no support for the idea of reservoirs of variation, unless you are going to follow daniels lead and claim that this is what non-coding DNA is. JAM is doing a much better job than I could with refuting that view, so I will simply ask: do you have a new mechanism? do you have a testable theory?

Definition of phylogenesis:

Quote

phylogenesis - (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms

Saltational evolution is not "independent of phylogenesis or the arisal of new forms", nor does it "deny heredity" (as in inheritance) ; it is just another explanation for these things. One more fully supported by the fossil record (especially the many observed gaps followed by intense adaptive radiations).

While "the mechanism for divergence between populations and a workable theoretical framework for constructing hypotheses about nested hierarchies" may be sufficient to explain variations within species, it has never (to my knowledge) been shown a capable mechanism for the arisal of new forms, or unique new biological systems.

Saltational evolution is just an attempt to better explain the observed progression of organisms in the fossil record.

If "the mechanism for divergence between populations" was the mechanism that created new forms, families, orders, etc., we'd surely see a much more diverse and continuous progression in the fossil record than we do.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,13:44

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,11:26)

Quote (JAM @ Nov. 10 2007,01:06)

...would you mind commenting on the intelligence of having the same codon that starts protein synthesis also encoding the amino acid methionine? ...

Not necessarily. Many genomic sequences are multi-functional - containing overlapping coding and non-coding functional sequences.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my question, and I suspect that you know it.

Quote

Perhaps we just don't know the functional advantage for combining the codon that starts protein synthesis and methionine.

So you aren't capable of recognizing intelligent design?

Quote

I ask because it seems really, really stupid to me; I can improve the design with my measly human intelligence.

Then why don't you?

Huh?[/quote]Why don't you engineer a better design and show it to the world? [/quote]
Switch one of the present serine codons to "start." That provides huge efficiency and energy savings.

Quote

Does that therefore make me smarter than God?

No.

Why not?[/quote]It just means you think you're smarter than God.[/quote]
That's completely dishonest of you, given that I don't claim that God designed protein synthetic machinery. YOU claim that life was intelligently designed. I don't.

Quote

So now that you have mastered all the various elements of biological design, you are prepared to say that anyone who was able to design it all would have to be unintelligent and that you could have come up with a better design?

Again, your argumentative tactics are completely dishonest. YOU claim to be able to recognize intelligent design in biology. I don't. I'm pointing you to a well-controlled example in which one aspect of design is unequivocally unintelligent RELATIVE to another aspect within the SAME mechanism.

Quote

Have you considered opening your eyes to the NATURE of biological complexity, and avoiding the dishonest arguments about its presence and extent?

I am attempting to "open my eyes" to anything and everything. Please explain (or link to) anything that will help me better understand "the NATURE of biological complexity".

Similar, but not identical, components with partially-overlapping functions.

Name a designed object that has those characteristics.

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,13:50

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 11 2007,13:07)

Daniel may I recommend a book to you? it's short.

book

you might get a broader perspective of galton bateson and devries and why their ideas were wrong. it has something to do with mendel.

I'll tell you what, after I'm done reading Bateson, I'll let you tell me everything that's wrong with him. I'd rather read his works myself first if you don't mind.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: Nov. 11 2007,13:53

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 10 2007,12:30)

Quote (JAM @ Nov. 05 2007,00:37)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 04 2007,13:05)

Let me also add; these scientists have theories that have never been falsified.

Let me add that whether they've been falsified is irrelevant, when they have never been TESTED.

Schindewolf based his theory on the observed fossil record as well as observed biological evidence. His theory was an attempt to explain all the evidence.

First, you're not familiar with all the evidence, so you can't make such a claim in good faith. Second, attempting to explain all the evidence isn't enough; it's about making and testing predictions. That's what "testing a hypothesis" means.

Quote

Berg based his theory on years and years of his own observations in the field, as well as the documented observations of countless others.

Why not just admit that he never tested his hypothesis?

Quote

Both of these men were scientists of the highest regard in their respective fields who based their theories on observed, documented phenomena.

You're lying again. It's not a theory unless it's been tested many, many times, and they are definitely not held in high regard if they don't test their own hypotheses. This is the very essence of science, Dan, and you reject it.

Quote

Davison took their work and expanded upon it - suggesting a workable mechanism. This mechanism (semi-meiotic reproduction) has been experimentally verified possible here,
here,
and here.

None of those things verifies his mechanism. He hasn't tested it, which means that it isn't science at all.

Quote

I have no idea why these scientists are ignored, but my guess is that their views don't fit the paradigm, and - based on my own observations - scientists whose ideas don't fit are generally ostracized, lose funding, and eventually relegated to the sidelines.

Baloney. They are ignored because they don't test their hypotheses.

Quote

No one wants to lose their position over such things, so they stick to the paradigm.

That's simply a lie, as the way to become famous in science is to overturn dogma. One needs data to do that, though.

Quote

That's my guess.

No, it isn't. That's disregard for the truth coupled with wishful thinking.

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007